PROCEEDING TOWARDS NMD WITHOUT ALLIED SUPPORT WILL SHATTER NATO AND CREATE A MORE DANGEROUS WORLD

JAMES RUBIN, US assistant secretary of state between 1997-2000, now lecturing at the London School of Economics, February 6, 2001, Financial Times (London) SECTION: COMMENT & ANALYSIS;Pg. 23 HEADLINE: COMMENT & ANALYSIS: A deal on missile defence: George Bush can build a consensus that protects the world against weapons of mass destruction, says James Rubin: //VT2002acsln

The first diplomatic challenge of the Bush presidency is fast approaching. Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, is calling the creation of a national missile defence (NMD) a moral imperative to defend the US against North Korean, Iranian or Iraqi ballistic attack. Meanwhile, governments in Europe, Russia and China have staked out their strong opposition to this plan.

If the US proceeds alone, this challenge could well become a crisis. Nato's solidarity might be shattered. The Russians could respond to a US withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which prohibits NMD, by rejecting existing agreements that have slashed the size of its nuclear arsenals, or worse, by halting co-operative programmes to protect the security of its huge stockpiles of nuclear material. China, in turn, could expand its plans to increase its nuclear forces, possibly setting off an arms race with India. This is a prescription for a far more dangerous world.

NMD WILL CAISE A NATO CRISIS IN THE NEXT YEAR AND WILL CHANGE THE ALLIANCE FOREVER

Sometime during the next year or so we can expect a crisis in the Nato alliance. The proximate cause will be Washington's plan for national missile defence (NMD), Europe's efforts to develop an independent military capability or, most likely, a mixture of both.

It's tempting to say the rupture will turn out to be an argument among friends, a spat as fleeting as it now seems inevitable. After all, there have been rows before in the alliance. During the 1970s, Europe scuppered the Pentagon's plans to deploy neutron bombs against the Soviet threat. A decade later it recoiled in horror at Ronald Reagan's Star Wars. The moments passed.

This time, though, it may be different. Europe's map has been redrawn and the US has a new set of anxieties. It has been more than a decade since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Nato cannot pretend indefinitely that nothing much has changed. Another way of looking at the present tensions is to see them as the start of a profound reconfiguration of the transatlantic security relationship.

"This issue could end up driving a stake through the heart of the alliance," said a senior European diplomat at NATO headquarters in Brussels. "First there is the danger that it will cause the Russians and the Chinese to ratchet up the arms race by finding ways to beat missile defenses. But there is also the fear that if the system works, American and European security interests will no longer be bound by exposure to the same threats."

USA DEVELOPMENT OF A NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE MEANS THAT SO-CALLED "ROGUE" STATES WILL ATTACK EUROPE INSTEAD

Ben Sheppard, Jane's Sentinel editor, The study of ballistic

missile proliferation formed part of his MSc in Strategic Studies. Jane's Intelligence Review October 1, 1999 HEADLINE: Ballistic missile proliferation: a flight of fantasy or fear? // ln-10/99-acs

In the long term, attacking Western Europe may prove even more desirable if the USA successfully develops the NMD system. If successful, the NMD will deter North Korean SSM strikes against the USA. Thus, ironically, the US NMD may actually prove detrimental to Western Europe's security since there are no plans as yet for a European-wide missile defence system.